Some Pics

  • 146 Replies
  • 15930 Views
*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #90 on: June 02, 2022, 02:31:59 AM »
First things first, what do you mean coherent?
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #91 on: June 02, 2022, 03:48:06 AM »
You dont know!
That's the point.
No one knows.
No one knows where the picture was taken from.
So no one knows how much of the buildings should be hidden.
So no ones knows if there is missing curvature.

How can you even say that. i clarified the details and then you went back and said they were unkown.
Where? 
What was the:
Time of day
Location
Direction
Distance between the objects
Temperature, exact time/date/location and we can look it up.

Not probably, what is the actual data for the picture?
You, not understanding/cherrypicking things/blatantly lying is not evidence for missing curvature.
Notice how we want the data and conditions so we can determine co tributing factors and you want to just ignore and lie about things?  Kinda shows what side the honesty is coming from.
oK, i am thnking an "at least" will work here. The location was either batey el soco harbor or further east, and then we had been in the boat for 5 or 10 mins (not 100 % sure), seems to me the trip to sayona island was only 1/2 hr, but this does not seem right, i will try to confirm. i actually remember thinking that i was already getting a good shot and we had just started so i think it was right out form batey el soco. But i was also really emotinal, so i may have misjudged the time.
Are you serious? 

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #92 on: June 02, 2022, 03:57:37 AM »
What do you mean coherent? And what is this san pedro marcois? Are you telling me there is another city in the between space?
By coherent, I mean a description of the location that doesn't contradict itself.
You started off with 40 km or 40 miles east of Santo Domingo, and 2-5 km west of Sayona (presumably Isla Saona).
The problem is that they are roughly 122 km or roughly 75 miles apart.
So if you were 40 miles east of Santo Domingo you would need to be 35 miles west of Isla Saona, not 2-5 km.

So your initial description of where you were is incoherent. It makes no sense.

Likewise, while el Soco is roughly 45 miles away from Santo Domino, there is a bunch of land in the way which would prevent you seeing Santo Domingo (at least not without seeing all the land in front of it).
This means your claim of seeing it shortly after leaving el Soco is incoherent as you wouldn't be able to and your image doesn't have a bunch of land in the way.

As for another city, yes there is.
I provided 2 options all the way back here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90099.msg2355104#msg2355104

Here is an image showing it:

The city you claimed to have departed is H (el Soco).
A city likely in good view shortly after leaving is C1 (San Pedro De Macoris).
A city likely in good view close to the island is C2 (La Romana)
« Last Edit: November 03, 2022, 02:24:01 PM by JackBlack »

Re: Some Pics
« Reply #93 on: June 02, 2022, 06:06:04 AM »
Faded
You live near the water?

Take a picture on a clear day
Post time of day and geotag location.

Then take a picture on a hot muggy day.
From same location.

Then we can discuss refraction.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #94 on: June 02, 2022, 08:44:22 AM »
An ocean swell could easily take care of some of the objections.

An ocean swell?  So how long do these ocean swells last?  Because they are consistently there and always blocking out the same amount of building from the same distance from the location and height above the ground.

Or do mean swell like curvature.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #95 on: June 02, 2022, 11:41:30 AM »
How can you even say that. i clarified the details and then you went back and said they were unkown.
Because you didn't clarify the details with any justification.
You started off admitting you didn't know, giving an impossible location.
But then magically you "clarify" to try to produce numbers showing a RE is wrong.

and you have even gone back and edited the OP to remove those numbers you originally provided.

Why should we accept those numbers?
On what basis have you determined these numbers?
I dont even want to start with you because i think you wil try every trick in the book, some of which i am not prepared to learn the counter argument for  - i feel that you are a professinal "round" earther on the flat earth society web page. So what did i delete?

however when you said there is no line of sight from batey to  santo domingo, i was definitely scratching my head - but i think an ocean swell could account for this.

So waht kindof conditions would we be looking for to get this super refraction?

You start off with, "I don't want to start with you...you are a professinal "round" earther." What's a professional round earther? In any case, you say you don't want to engage, then proceed to ask engaging questions. Which is it?

So, back to the original:

- Where exactly were you?
- What buildings are we looking at? Which ones? The tallest building in Santo Domingo, if that's what we're even looking at, is the Torre Anacaona 27, 41 stories, 591 ft tall, built in    2017. Second tallest, the Torre Caney,   42 stories, 502 ft tall, built in 2008...and so on. The web provides a list of the tallest buildings in Santo Domingo.
- How far from the buildings were you, exactly?
- What was your elevation, exactly?

Maybe an ocean swell got in the way of your photo. Anyone's guess. Looks fairly calm, but who knows what it was like near the buildings. No one knows. But you also have to ask yourself, "Are all the photos showing the bottoms of things obscured caused by ocean swells?" All of them? And what if we see the same effect and there is no water nearby to swell? What's the explanation there, ground swells?

In short, to really examine something like this, you need to provide specifics. We been over this countless times and yet you're still all over the place with vagaries. I mean what can anyone do with this gobble-dee-goop of a mess:

"The location was either batey el soco harbor or further east, and then we had been in the boat for 5 or 10 mins (not 100 % sure), seems to me the trip to sayona island was only 1/2 hr, but this does not seem right, i will try to confirm. i actually remember thinking that i was already getting a good shot and we had just started so i think it was right out form batey el soco. But i was also really emotinal, so i may have misjudged the time."

See my bullet point questions above. That's what needs to be provided, not "I think, either here or there, I lost track of time, I was really emotional..." It kind of seems like you're a professional flat earther just trying to waste everyone's time with never being clear about anything. Are you paid to behave this way?


OK how about you provide some info - like what kindof conditions lead to 50 percent refraction, as opposed o the 15% Samuel Rowbotham stated


Who said 50% refraction? You realize that refraction is a spectrum, right. In some cases there is very little, in some cases like mirages, there may be a lot. Or anywhere in between. No one knows what the refraction level may be from your image because no one knows where you even were or what exactly you were even looking at. Why you don't understand this is beyond me.

, and why dont you post a pic of these building you are proposing are the ones - the tallest ones.


No. You are the one who presented the image. You're the one claiming ocean swells. YOU need to provide what it was exactly that you were looking at, how far you were, where you were, etc. Why do you not understand this?

I can look up just as easily as you, buildings and their heights for any part of the world. I have no idea where that is in your image. Only you know and you don't even seem to know where you were or what you were looking at.

I have already stated that i will try to do this in a bit, but if you want to contribute some leg work (ahem finger work) mauyb you could do it. lets just figure this out.


What can I do? I wasn't there, you were. How am I supposed to figure anything out when you don't even know where you were or what you were looking at? How do you not get this?

There is a group of 4 or 5 buildings that look like you can see the top 7ish(?) stories in the picture i posted. that alone should make it easier to ID - just find A map showing the 5

That's for you to do. When you present something, you provide your location, what exactly are the targets, how far you were from them, etc. Why do you think it's up to someone else to try and divine all those things when you don't even know them yourself?

? tallest ? and if they are in a line pointing to sayona, well that is a pretty good start at an explanation. Any way, i will likely come back and do do some more investgating in a short bit. Like i said, dont want to bother anyone, unless you are a total jerk, just wanted to post some pics that i was pretty sure pose a problem to the theory. Their was no question in my mind, that this was not what i presented it as. Included were my after thoughts, side notes that it is possibly, like i said some buildings in between, nut i have looked into this twice, but not too extensively, as well when i drove along their (but was sight seeing as well so MAY have missed sometihng). It looks like a grouping of 4 or 5 buildings, but maybe a line.

Like I've said, and others too, multiple times, how is anyone supposed to do something with one image where you say stuff like, "i drove along their (but was sight seeing as well so MAY have missed sometihng). It looks like a grouping of 4 or 5 buildings, but maybe a line."

Another thing - those questions you pose - you should know the answer to those already and post it. That would be a real worth while contribution.

How? I wasn't there. And you don't even know where you were when you were there, wherever that was? How do you expect someone else to mine your failed memory and conjure up data when we don't even know if you were 40 km or 40 miles from something that you can't even identify? Why are you trying to put the data needs required onto someone else when you don't even know them yourself? How do you not understand this?

*

Timeisup

  • 4048
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #96 on: June 05, 2022, 01:03:06 AM »
First things first, what do you mean coherent?

You want photographic evidence Mike ? How about this Russian 121 Mega pixel monster of a snap?

https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels

This should be a big enough, detailed enough piece of NASA free imagery to satisfy anyone?
What do you think Mike?
"I can accept that some aspects of FE belief are true, while others are fiction."

Jack Black

Now that is a laugh!

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #97 on: November 03, 2022, 04:51:14 AM »
Men in black call me a liar.
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #98 on: November 03, 2022, 04:59:06 AM »
THIS IS NOT ABOUT UFOS (prob really is a little... maybe maybe not) BUT YALL LED BY FULL TIMER JACK <IN> BLACK serve the same i would think...
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #99 on: November 03, 2022, 07:14:33 AM »
stash
I was just goinjgto adress the factb that yuou dont know yourself that what you are l;ooking at and opostimng on here - the ork of fe debunkers - you dont know if that is the norm or if they are just showing the only data that supports their idea. because what i commonly see is outside of the theorewtical. rowbotham said 15 %refraction. a simple calc shows this is not c orrect5 but i do nioit thinmk it is rowbotham who is wrongf here. so wasw gonna just say that before getting into your long answer with you. butr then i read the last anmd saw3 trhat it was indeed bunk what you were saying- you are trying tro cast doubt on myexplanaTION. WELL YOU DIDNT BELIUVE IT AND HOW IT ALL FITS TOGETHER. sorryb ccaPS. IF YOU WOULD HAVE read it all and comprehended or payed aTTENTION - ALL I SAID WAS THAT EVEN IF IT WERTE 40 KM IT IS SATILL A PIC I WANTED TO POST FOR THE FE CROWD NOT TYOU.
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

Jura-Glenlivet II

  • Flat Earth Inquisitor
  • 6185
  • Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #100 on: November 03, 2022, 07:21:46 AM »

Are you wearing gloves?
Life is meaningless and everything dies.

Suicide is dangerous- other philosophies are available-#Life is great.

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #101 on: November 03, 2022, 07:32:21 AM »
What do you mean coherent? And what is this san pedro marcois? Are you telling me there is another city in the between space?
By coherent, I mean a description of the location that doesn't contradict itself.
You started off with 40 km or 40 miles east of Santo Domingo, and 2-5 km west of Sayona (presumably Isla Saona).
The problem is that they are roughly 12 km or roughly 75 miles apart.
So if you were 40 miles east of Santo Domingo you would need to be 35 miles west of Isla Saona, not 2-5 km.

So your initial description of where you were is incoherent. It makes no sense.

Likewise, while el Soco is roughly 45 miles away from Santo Domino, there is a bunch of land in the way which would prevent you seeing Santo Domingo (at least not without seeing all the land in front of it).
This means your claim of seeing it shortly after leaving el Soco is incoherent as you wouldn't be able to and your image doesn't have a bunch of land in the way.

As for another city, yes there is.
I provided 2 options all the way back here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90099.msg2355104#msg2355104

Here is an image showing it:
before i adress any of this - just tell me the part i didnt already explain, because i am having cmptr troubles. this is a skill testing question.
The city you claimed to have departed is H (el Soco).
A city likely in good view shortly after leaving is C1 (San Pedro De Macoris).
A city likely in good view close to the island is C2 (La Romana)
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #102 on: November 03, 2022, 12:27:15 PM »
stash
I was just goinjgto adress the factb that yuou dont know yourself that what you are l;ooking at and opostimng on here - the ork of fe debunkers - you dont know if that is the norm or if they are just showing the only data that supports their idea. because what i commonly see is outside of the theorewtical. rowbotham said 15 %refraction. a simple calc shows this is not c orrect5 but i do nioit thinmk it is rowbotham who is wrongf here. so wasw gonna just say that before getting into your long answer with you. butr then i read the last anmd saw3 trhat it was indeed bunk what you were saying- you are trying tro cast doubt on myexplanaTION. WELL YOU DIDNT BELIUVE IT AND HOW IT ALL FITS TOGETHER. sorryb ccaPS. IF YOU WOULD HAVE read it all and comprehended or payed aTTENTION - ALL I SAID WAS THAT EVEN IF IT WERTE 40 KM IT IS SATILL A PIC I WANTED TO POST FOR THE FE CROWD NOT TYOU.

Are you Canadian, drunk, and wearing mittens?

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #103 on: November 03, 2022, 02:42:22 PM »
Men in black call me a liar.
No, I rarely ware black.
But it seems you have found yet another delusional paranoid excuse to reject reality and pretend anyone explaining why you are wrong must be in on some massive global conspiracy.

rowbotham said 15 %refraction.
The high prophet Row Boat said lots of things. That doesn't make it true.
He says lots of things which are wrong.

Regardless, what would this "15% refraction" even mean?

ALL I SAID WAS THAT EVEN IF IT WERTE 40 KM IT IS SATILL A PIC I WANTED TO POST FOR THE FE CROWD NOT TYOU.
If you don't want us to comment, then post it in the believers only section.
What do you mean coherent? And what is this san pedro marcois? Are you telling me there is another city in the between space?
By coherent, I mean a description of the location that doesn't contradict itself.
You started off with 40 km or 40 miles east of Santo Domingo, and 2-5 km west of Sayona (presumably Isla Saona).
The problem is that they are roughly 122 km or roughly 75 miles apart.
So if you were 40 miles east of Santo Domingo you would need to be 35 miles west of Isla Saona, not 2-5 km.

So your initial description of where you were is incoherent. It makes no sense.

Likewise, while el Soco is roughly 45 miles away from Santo Domino, there is a bunch of land in the way which would prevent you seeing Santo Domingo (at least not without seeing all the land in front of it).
This means your claim of seeing it shortly after leaving el Soco is incoherent as you wouldn't be able to and your image doesn't have a bunch of land in the way.

As for another city, yes there is.
I provided 2 options all the way back here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90099.msg2355104#msg2355104

Here is an image showing it:

The city you claimed to have departed is H (el Soco).
A city likely in good view shortly after leaving is C1 (San Pedro De Macoris).
A city likely in good view close to the island is C2 (La Romana)
before i adress any of this - just tell me the part i didnt already explain, because i am having cmptr troubles. this is a skill testing question.
Note: I noticed a typo in that post and have fixed it. It should have said 122 km or 75 miles apart.

But as for the issue you haven't explained, regardless of if you were 40 miles or 40 km away from Santo Domingo, that would put your vastly more than 5 km or miles from the island.
If instead you were just a short distance from the harbour in El Soco, then there would be land mass (near Andres) which would obstruct your view to Santo Domingo.
This means your claim cannot match the pictures you have taken, even allowing significant generosity regarding these claims.

This makes it far more likely (assuming you left El Socco and were going to the island) that you were actually viewing San Pedro De Macoris or La Romana.
For San Pedro, it is roughly 60 km or 38 miles between the island and city. For La Romana it is 30 km or 19 miles.

So just what city were you looking at, and where were you looking from?

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #104 on: November 12, 2022, 07:11:44 PM »
So just because the bottoms of the buildings are obscurred.... i dont know how it works exactly, probablt lots of things happen at the horizon from day to day... but what about the 900 to 12...? 1400 or so missing ft of curvature (supposing i was a full 50 miles away from downtown SD = really not a STRETCH). This is closer to flat than the theorized curvature and my attempt at getting an explanation as to what could lead to this huge amount of refraction, as opposed to the (as i undwerstand it) 15 %  max quoted by Samuel Rowbotham...

Tom Bishop, upon my explaining some idea i had to him suggested what i was talking about sounded some what like youtubers "pea brane"/ mr thrive and survive 's
videos who talks bout the horizon ramping up to a point, which i guess blocks out the bottoms of distant objects. If anyone wants to check it out, dont know if a lot of peeps talks about this or what...
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #105 on: November 12, 2022, 08:03:22 PM »
So just because the bottoms of the buildings are obscured
Yes, something which is expected for a RE and not at all expected for a FE.

The observation clearly contradicts a FE, with no hope of recovery unless the FE can come up with an explanation for what is obstructing the view to the bottom.


(supposing i was a full 50 miles away from downtown SD = really not a STRETCH)
Suppose you were only 10 miles away?
We really have no idea where the photo was taken, and no reason at all to accept your claim of 50 miles.

To me, it seems more likely that you left El Soco and saw San Pedro in the distance.

This is closer to flat than the theorized curvature and my attempt at getting an explanation as to what could lead to this huge amount of refraction
Because you still want it to be refraction, rather than an error in the distance.
If the distance is wrong, we don't need the refraction.

as opposed to the (as i undwerstand it) 15 %  max quoted by Samuel Rowbotham...
As already pointed out, that "15%" doesn't really make much sense, and you need to apply it twice. Once to determine the distance to the horizon and then once again to determine the amount that should be hidden.

It is much easier to understand it as using the actual formula/approximation (rather than 8 archaic units per archaic unit squared) of h=d^2/2R, and substituting in R=7/6R. As that is accounting for "standard refraction".

If you want to simplify that, it is 6.85 inch per mile squared.

But that isn't the maximum. That is standard.
i.e. on an average day you should expect something like that. The maximum can be much greater than that, and there are times where it is less.

talks bout the horizon ramping up to a point, which i guess blocks out the bottoms of distant objects.
Yes, typical dishonest FE magic perspective which magically makes the FE look just like you would expect the RE to appear, directly contradicting the other claims of it being perfectly flat and being able to see the bottom of a distant object no matter how far away it is.
The typical cherry picking, where when refuted, they just pretend that results for a RE are expected on a FE.

But what the entirely fail it is any kind of explanation as to how this occurs.

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #106 on: January 26, 2023, 12:25:39 PM »
Some one asked if there was any proof, I would call this evidence at least (the pics early in the thread,, specifically the long range on the ocean)
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #107 on: January 26, 2023, 12:50:58 PM »
Some one asked if there was any proof, I would call this evidence at least (the pics early in the thread,, specifically the long range on the ocean)
And as already demonstrated, you have no idea what the distance is, and the bottom of the buildings are missing.
So if this is evidence of anything, it is that Earth curves, such that Earth blocks the view to the bottom of the buildings.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #108 on: January 26, 2023, 01:01:58 PM »
Some one asked if there was any proof, I would call this evidence at least (the pics early in the thread,, specifically the long range on the ocean)

In this case, actual evidence would need to constitute several things:

- Observer location
- Observer distance to targets
- Target identification
- Observer height
- Height of visual targets.

We can't seem to ever get any of these necessary parameters. Ex., 40 miles versus 40 kilometers, location etc.

Thererfore, it's not really evidence because it's unverifiable.

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #109 on: January 26, 2023, 02:05:12 PM »
Some one asked if there was any proof, I would call this evidence at least (the pics early in the thread,, specifically the long range on the ocean)
And as already demonstrated, you have no idea what the distance is, and the bottom of the buildings are missing.
So if this is evidence of anything, it is that Earth curves, such that Earth blocks the view to the bottom of the buildings.
No you are wrong.
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #110 on: January 26, 2023, 02:07:00 PM »
Some one asked if there was any proof, I would call this evidence at least (the pics early in the thread,, specifically the long range on the ocean)

In this case, actual evidence would need to constitute several things:

- Observer location
- Observer distance to targets
- Target identification
- Observer height
- Height of visual targets.

We can't seem to ever get any of these necessary parameters. Ex., 40 miles versus 40 kilometers, location etc.

Thererfore, it's not really evidence because it's unverifiable.
I dont really knw what you are tryin to say, because most of that is not correct. You arfe clinging to the fact that in my oiriginal post i said i coulnd remember something.
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #111 on: January 26, 2023, 02:10:01 PM »
I think you two need to clarify what you are talking about, because that is not good enough. I am tempted to just leave it at this - People - read through the thread to discover these objections are lies... i really dont understand what is going on here much beyond that
« Last Edit: January 26, 2023, 02:13:09 PM by faded mike »
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #112 on: January 26, 2023, 02:14:20 PM »
Some one asked if there was any proof, I would call this evidence at least (the pics early in the thread,, specifically the long range on the ocean)

In this case, actual evidence would need to constitute several things:

- Observer location
- Observer distance to targets
- Target identification
- Observer height
- Height of visual targets.

We can't seem to ever get any of these necessary parameters. Ex., 40 miles versus 40 kilometers, location etc.

Thererfore, it's not really evidence because it's unverifiable.
I dont really knw what you are tryin to say, because most of that is not correct. You arfe clinging to the fact that in my oiriginal post i said i coulnd remember something.

Yes, and not being able to remember key data is why your evidence is not evidence. So far it's only been, "I was somewhere, some distance away from something, and I've determined there is no curve." You realize that amounts to a whole lot of nothing because I could say that about anything.

It's the equivalent of me saying, "I was somewhere, some distance away from something, and I've determined there is a curve."

So provide the necessary specific data to validate:

- Observer location
- Observer distance to targets
- Target identification
- Observer height
- Height of visual targets.

If you can't, it's not able to be examined, it's not verifiable, therefore, it is not "evidence". Pretty simple really.

It seems pretty clear. I have no idea what you would need clarification on. It's been spelled out what is required.

Re: Some Pics
« Reply #113 on: January 26, 2023, 02:19:03 PM »
"Clinging to the fact i couldnt remember"


Amazing!

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #114 on: January 26, 2023, 02:20:33 PM »
Some one asked if there was any proof, I would call this evidence at least (the pics early in the thread,, specifically the long range on the ocean)

In this case, actual evidence would need to constitute several things:

- Observer location
- Observer distance to targets
- Target identification
- Observer height
- Height of visual targets.

We can't seem to ever get any of these necessary parameters. Ex., 40 miles versus 40 kilometers, location etc.

Thererfore, it's not really evidence because it's unverifiable.
I dont really knw what you are tryin to say, because most of that is not correct. You arfe clinging to the fact that in my oiriginal post i said i coulnd remember something.

Yes, and not being able to remember key data is why your evidence is not evidence. So far it's only been, "I was somewhere, some distance away from something, and I've determined there is no curve." You realize that amounts to a whole lot of nothing because I could say that about anything.

It's the equivalent of me saying, "I was somewhere, some distance away from something, and I've determined there is a curve."

So provide the necessary specific data to validate:

- Observer location
- Observer distance to targets
- Target identification
- Observer height
- Height of visual targets.

If you can't, it's not able to be examined, it's not verifiable, therefore, it is not "evidence". Pretty simple really.

It seems pretty clear. I have no idea what you would need clarification on. It's been spelled out what is required.
you claim i only speak in vagaries... that incorrect as it pertains to this,anyway
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #115 on: January 26, 2023, 02:23:20 PM »
"Clinging to the fact i couldnt remember"


Amazing!
You just dont understand....
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #116 on: January 26, 2023, 02:23:28 PM »
No you are wrong.
What a great comeback.
Care to try addressing any of the issues raised?

Care to explain why the bottom is missing?
Care to try justifying your claims about distance, or even location?

I dont really knw what you are tryin to say, because most of that is not correct. You arfe clinging to the fact that in my oiriginal post i said i coulnd remember something.
If you don't know what they are trying to say, how do you know it is incorrect?
And no, we are using your inability to justify your position.
You have no idea where the photo was taken and what it was of, so you just make up crap to pretend Earth can't be round.

I think you two need to clarify what you are talking about, because that is not good enough. I am tempted to just leave it at this - People - read through the thread to discover these objections are lies... i really dont understand what is going on here much beyond that
Yes, your objections are lies.

If you aren't willing to defend your claims, don't make them.

You started this thread with bold claims of a photo using numbers which clearly don't add up.
Then after it was demonstrated they don't, you just make up new numbers.
Why should we believe them?

You clearly haven't documented it to the level required to constitute evidence.
All you have is a photo where you think you shouldn't be able to see the buildings for a RE.

Why shouldn't we accept the more rational explanation that you have a photo of San Pedro De Macoris, taken shortly after leaving El Soco, showing the bottom of buildings obstructed by the curve, and the tops still visible due to the distance not being enough for the curvature to entirely hide them?

Again, all we can get from this photo of yours is that something is obstructing the view to the bottom of the buildings. And the only rational candidate is Earth itself.
That means you have provided evidence that Earth is curved.

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #117 on: January 26, 2023, 02:24:54 PM »
Actually, no wait... now i remember - you have some kindof problem.
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Some Pics
« Reply #118 on: January 26, 2023, 02:25:48 PM »
You dont know!
That's the point.
No one knows.
No one knows where the picture was taken from.
So no one knows how much of the buildings should be hidden.
So no ones knows if there is missing curvature.

How can you even say that. i clarified the details and then you went back and said they were unkown.
Where? 
What was the:
Time of day
Location
Direction
Distance between the objects
Temperature, exact time/date/location and we can look it up.

Not probably, what is the actual data for the picture?
You, not understanding/cherrypicking things/blatantly lying is not evidence for missing curvature.
Notice how we want the data and conditions so we can determine co tributing factors and you want to just ignore and lie about things?  Kinda shows what side the honesty is coming from.
oK, i am thnking an "at least" will work here. The location was either batey el soco harbor or further east, and then we had been in the boat for 5 or 10 mins (not 100 % sure), seems to me the trip to sayona island was only 1/2 hr, but this does not seem right, i will try to confirm. i actually remember thinking that i was already getting a good shot and we had just started so i think it was right out form batey el soco. But i was also really emotinal, so i may have misjudged the time.
Are you serious?
Describe your problem.
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

Re: Some Pics
« Reply #119 on: January 26, 2023, 03:22:59 PM »
Some one asked if there was any proof, I would call this evidence at least (the pics early in the thread,, specifically the long range on the ocean)

In this case, actual evidence would need to constitute several things:

- Observer location
- Observer distance to targets
- Target identification
- Observer height
- Height of visual targets.

We can't seem to ever get any of these necessary parameters. Ex., 40 miles versus 40 kilometers, location etc.

Thererfore, it's not really evidence because it's unverifiable.
I dont really knw what you are tryin to say, because most of that is not correct. You arfe clinging to the fact that in my oiriginal post i said i coulnd remember something.

Yes, and not being able to remember key data is why your evidence is not evidence. So far it's only been, "I was somewhere, some distance away from something, and I've determined there is no curve." You realize that amounts to a whole lot of nothing because I could say that about anything.

It's the equivalent of me saying, "I was somewhere, some distance away from something, and I've determined there is a curve."

So provide the necessary specific data to validate:

- Observer location
- Observer distance to targets
- Target identification
- Observer height
- Height of visual targets.

If you can't, it's not able to be examined, it's not verifiable, therefore, it is not "evidence". Pretty simple really.

It seems pretty clear. I have no idea what you would need clarification on. It's been spelled out what is required.
you claim i only speak in vagaries... that incorrect as it pertains to this,anyway

Amazing!

Doubles down


So if INcorrect
What is the correctikn